It's funny because you think you aren't an atheist, but you are. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. If you are not actively believing in a god, then you are an atheist, even IF you accept the possibility of the existence of one.

Difference is, atheism is the act of saying that god doesn't exist. Agnosticism is saying that he can or can't. If I'm wrong, then what are people called - the ones who resolutely state that he doesn't exist?

No. Atheism is NOT saying god does not exist. The ONLY thing atheism means is that they do not actively believe in god. If you answer anything except for "yes" to the question "do you believe in god", then you are an atheist.

What you STILL fail to acknowledge is that atheism and agnosticism are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Most atheists could be called agnostic atheists. Guess what, you CANNOT be a pure agnostic. That definition simply does not exist. You can claim you have a lack of knowledge in a deity all you like, that doesn't change the fact that you aren't actively believing in a god, therefore making you an atheist. Atheism is NOT actively disbelieving in a god, either - it is simply the lack of an active belief in a deity.

1) Hardline agnosticism applies not only to your own personal belief, but to a whole population. Not only do they say that they don't believe a god exists, but that it's impossible to believe. Also, it's more philosophy-based rather than religious, because it can extend past the issue of a deity.

Atheism is centered around the lack of belief in a deity. It's more specific, and doesn't have the same range of subject that agnosticism has.

However, I am not saying (and never have explicitly stated) that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. If it seemed like that, then ignore my previous comments.

Never said they were completely different.

2) I am an agnostic atheist. I just said agnostic to get the point across that I don't have a personal stake in my original claim that people should stop the religious bashing.

3) There is such a thing as agnostic theism - where you believe a god exists but aren't sure what it is. So at a point, atheism does split from agnosticism. The amorphous blob analogy only applies up to a certain point.

1)I never explicitly said the two are exclusive all the time. I just said that there is a technical difference because agnosticism stating something about a whole population, along with a persona belief whereas atheism is a personal belief. That doesn't mean that they are completely separate things; it's more like pointing to different sections of a metaphorical amorphous blob and defining them as "regions." In this case, the regions are somewhat different, but not completely.

Never said they were completely different.

2) I am an agnostic atheist. I just said agnostic to get the point across that I don't have a personal stake in my original claim that people should stop the religious bashing.

3) There is such a thing as agnostic theism - where you believe a god exists but aren't sure what it is. So at a point, atheism does split from agnosticism. The amorphous blob analogy only applies up to a certain point.

Let me put it this way. You call yourself an agnostic because you're too much of a pussy to just admit that you don't believe in god to religious people. You can't just sit on the fence forever and pretend to be superior to everybody else, you know.

I KNOW what agnosticism is about. But attempting to dodge the fact that you're an atheist just so you don't have to discuss it with anybody IS a cop-out. Just admit the fact that you don't believe in god and move on. Guess what, MOST atheists are agnostic as well, including myself. But that doesn't mean I'm going to give any credence to baseless claims.
Plus, atheism would only be "stubborn and illogical" if there was ANY evidence whatsoever that even ALLOWS for the existence of a deity.

Ok, looking back on this conversation, up to this point it seems like I was wording things wrong.
However, your comment proves, to me, that I do, in fact, need to clarify, because neither of us understands/was wording our arguments correctly.
So, here are the definitions (just to make sure we have everything cleared up, and so I can prove to you why agnosticism isn't a cop-out).
Note: When I refer to “general-sense” atheist, I’m referring to the collection of belief systems that have a lack of belief in a god. Although I do fall under this category, I do not fall under the category of a common atheist (below).
Note 2: I made up the term “common atheist.” Whatever the name is, however, I am not part of it (as you will see).

Hardline Atheist: Says that God doesn't exist. Is 100% certain about this. These were the atheists I was referring to as "stubborn," and you'll see why.

Common Atheist: Says "I have a lack of belief in God."

Agnostic Atheist: Is, in fact, a general-sense atheist (which is different than a common/hardline atheist, because general-sense encompasses all 3 groups). But this is similar to saying that a grizzly bear is a bear; it is not specific enough (especially when referring to religion). The differences between a common atheist and an atheist agnostic are below.

Agnostic Theist: "God exists, but I don't know what he is." Clearly not atheist, but is still agnostic. This is an example of an agnostic not fitting the atheist category.

Obviously, a hardline atheist and an agnostic are not the same. However, let's compare the common atheist to the atheist agnostic:

Similarities:
a) Both have a lack of belief in God.
b) Both are part of the "general sense" atheist group (defined by the lack of belief). Differences:
a) Common atheists don't address the issue of certainty. Agnostics do. Even then, there are two types of agnostics: Hardline and softline. The hardline says that no one can know the true nature of God. Softline only says "I can't know the true nature of God." So, agnostics split off from atheists in that they actually acknowledge the issue of certainty, whereas atheists either ignore it or don't acknowledge it.
b) When I said that agnosticism falls under the category of atheism, I was not telling the whole story. Agnosticism actually, depending on how you define it in context with the rest of your spiritual/philosophical beliefs, can actually extend ¬¬past religion. A general sense of my agnosticism is that I believe that nothing is certain – whether it comes to morals, perception, religion, etc.

This is what I believe atheism is lacking. Because the issue of certainty in one's beliefs does need to be addressed. While the common atheist does not say they are 100% certain, they also don't say that they are uncertain. They just don’t address the issue at all.
I like to think that common atheists are either hardline atheists or common agnostics in the making. This is because they will eventually have to address the issue of certainty, which they don’t. Obviously, this comes from my beliefs as an agnostic.

Now, for why the “cop-out” explanation makes no sense:
1) I really don’t care whether or not I offend atheists or the religious by saying I’m agnostic. I’m not, in fact, trying to avoid the fact that I am atheist. That is a baseless claim you just made, a claim made by many because they feel like agnostics are, in fact, the cowards of the religious community. However, even if some agnostics are, this does not apply to me. I did not become agnostic to avoid conflict. I became agnostic because I think it’s the most logical choice.
2) The reason, instead, is that I have enough confidence to say that nothing is certain. This is what separates me from the common atheist. Not that they don’t have the confidence to admit it; it’s just that they don’t acknowledge the issue of certainty.
I am agnostic atheist because, like you, I lack a belief in god. However, I am willing to state that I can’t be 100% certain. Only 99%. Yes, I am saying that there is the possibility of the Christian God existing. However, it is very unlikely. I’m also willing to say that there is a possibility that unicorns exist, and that I am, in fact, a leprechaun (without my knowledge, of course). This is because humans have an extremely limited worldview, and who are they to say that something doesn’t exist if, hypothetically, it does exist beyond their perspective? However, these examples are obviously incredibly unlikely, which is why I lean towards common atheism, rather than theism. Thus, agnostic atheist.
I won’t give them a 0% chance, though, because anything is possible, and nothing – absolutely nothing – can be proven/disproven to a 100% chance.
So, long story short, I hereby announce that I am atheist (contrary to what I may have portrayed earlier, because I worded it horribly). However, I am not a common atheist. I am an agnostic atheist.
It may have seemed like I was trying to dodge the claims of me being atheist. Sorry if I portrayed it like that.

1) I can't delete my comments anymore, so just look at comment #184 as a revision.

2) No, I'm not a pussy. Atheism - the type demonstrated in this post - is completely ******* stubborn and illogical. If something is so completely beyond our comprehension that we can't prove/disprove it, we have to allow for that possibility. Humans can never know this, though, because nothing - not a single ******* thing - is certain.

However, you may have the argument that that last statement is contradictory. However, like how a box can't contain itself, that statement doesn't apply to itself.